1. Title, director and release year?
"Darwin's Nightmare," Hubert Sauper, 2004
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Tanzanian society is based almost entirely on the fishing industry and very few locals reap the benefits.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The first and most obvious was the state of poverty. Related to this, there is a major lack of resources, high rates of disease and not nearly enough medical means. In some cases, there even seems to be a lack of government, or at least governmental attention and laws are very loosely followed, if at all. One major concern is that the lake is losing its ability to sustain life. There was no clear regulation on disposing the fish carcasses and any related waste.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
A very interesting note that was revealed early on was that the perch was introduced into the lake as an "experiment" and after completely dominating the indigenous species of fish and other sea life, the perch became the focus on the local fish industry. The unwavering greed of the foreign market, packing planes above maximum payload resulting in unsuccessful take offs. Another compelling feature of the film is the full range of emotions, both positive and negative, presented by all parties included. The pilots' sacrifices made to support their families, people singing and dancing, children fighting over food, locals struggling to survive, and children looking forward to getting an education all exemplify this confusing mix of sensibilities and attitudes. Yet another interesting outlook was that of the prostitute, Eliza, and just how torn she was between living her life and selling herself to pilots for $10 a night. The fact that a client, later in the film, kills her intensifies the sympathy we feel for women like her. It is baffling to go along with the fishermen and watch them work and collect the fish and then turn around and receive very little compensation. An added bonus: they rarely get to see their families because of the line of work they are in.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
There was some information the was a little ambiguous, like what role was the fish research center playing? The issue of theft was not addressed. The citizens were either playing dumb or simply were not aware of the developing war and the fact that the cargo planes were first providing weapons before flying off with somewhere around 500 tons of fish.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I'd be interested to know the history of the area. What was the local economy like before the "experiment?" Why have they been able to continue their burning fish carcass process without some health organization realizing how harmful it is? What kind of regulation on commerce can be made to allow the local population to benefit from the perch in their lake?
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The intention was probably to address a global audience, reaching out to students as young as high school. The film was presented in a way that is appropriate to show a younger audience, and try to elicit an emotional response that will perhaps influence its viewers in the future. The problems covered in the film are so vast; it is hard to say if viewers will leave with the motivation to help, because no solutions were presented.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
There are a few hints that suggested government should step in and support either with food or supplies or maybe a regulatory policy, but no concrete decisions were made. The World Food Organization (or an organization to that effect) was providing food, but barely enough to make a lasting difference.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
It was difficult, at times, to understand what was being said, subtitles could have facilitated in understanding some of the conversations. Granted, subtitles were implemented, but not always. Some background information on the perch's introduction could have shed some light on how the industry developed and who was responsible.
"Darwin's Nightmare," Hubert Sauper, 2004
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Tanzanian society is based almost entirely on the fishing industry and very few locals reap the benefits.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The first and most obvious was the state of poverty. Related to this, there is a major lack of resources, high rates of disease and not nearly enough medical means. In some cases, there even seems to be a lack of government, or at least governmental attention and laws are very loosely followed, if at all. One major concern is that the lake is losing its ability to sustain life. There was no clear regulation on disposing the fish carcasses and any related waste.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
A very interesting note that was revealed early on was that the perch was introduced into the lake as an "experiment" and after completely dominating the indigenous species of fish and other sea life, the perch became the focus on the local fish industry. The unwavering greed of the foreign market, packing planes above maximum payload resulting in unsuccessful take offs. Another compelling feature of the film is the full range of emotions, both positive and negative, presented by all parties included. The pilots' sacrifices made to support their families, people singing and dancing, children fighting over food, locals struggling to survive, and children looking forward to getting an education all exemplify this confusing mix of sensibilities and attitudes. Yet another interesting outlook was that of the prostitute, Eliza, and just how torn she was between living her life and selling herself to pilots for $10 a night. The fact that a client, later in the film, kills her intensifies the sympathy we feel for women like her. It is baffling to go along with the fishermen and watch them work and collect the fish and then turn around and receive very little compensation. An added bonus: they rarely get to see their families because of the line of work they are in.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
There was some information the was a little ambiguous, like what role was the fish research center playing? The issue of theft was not addressed. The citizens were either playing dumb or simply were not aware of the developing war and the fact that the cargo planes were first providing weapons before flying off with somewhere around 500 tons of fish.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I'd be interested to know the history of the area. What was the local economy like before the "experiment?" Why have they been able to continue their burning fish carcass process without some health organization realizing how harmful it is? What kind of regulation on commerce can be made to allow the local population to benefit from the perch in their lake?
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The intention was probably to address a global audience, reaching out to students as young as high school. The film was presented in a way that is appropriate to show a younger audience, and try to elicit an emotional response that will perhaps influence its viewers in the future. The problems covered in the film are so vast; it is hard to say if viewers will leave with the motivation to help, because no solutions were presented.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
There are a few hints that suggested government should step in and support either with food or supplies or maybe a regulatory policy, but no concrete decisions were made. The World Food Organization (or an organization to that effect) was providing food, but barely enough to make a lasting difference.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
It was difficult, at times, to understand what was being said, subtitles could have facilitated in understanding some of the conversations. Granted, subtitles were implemented, but not always. Some background information on the perch's introduction could have shed some light on how the industry developed and who was responsible.